third trimester abortions are infanticide, that is precisely my point. the callous tone of the "abortion/infanticide is going to happen. you aren't taking the baby home" sent chills down my spine. the viability issue is a band-aid fix used by abortion proponents...in 100 years who knows how early we will be able to preserve human life outside the womb...you can be certain given the accelerating rate of technology that it will be well into the 2nd trimester. saying otherwise is bad science. never mind that the Roe V. Wade decision was written using intentionally vague and weak language because the court wanted the issue revisited (right to privacy, what the hell is that?). the justices were deeply troubled by this issue and probably never envisioned we would be talking about the legality of crushing the head of a 5 or 6 month old baby to protect the woman's "right to privacy". besides everytime this comes up the knee jerk pro-choice crowd always claims the sky is fallling and that we are on the verge of outlawing abortion. even if the court overturned Roe v. Wade, the decision would go to the states, abortion would not become illegal.

By calling third trimester abortions 'infanticide' you're implying that the fetus is actually a person. From a moral, philosophical, and medical standpoint there may be some value to this assertion. From a legal standpoint, however, it was settled long before Roe that when the constitution refers to a 'person' it only refers to people who have been born alive. If you think that this constitutional interpretation of the word 'person' is wrong, that's fine, but realize that you're opening up a can of worms that extends far beyond the abortion situation.

Also, the 'right to privacy' didn't come out of nowhere. It was first recognized in the contraception cases, not Roe. The practice of finding un-enumerated substantive rights in the due process clause (substantive due process) began long before those cases as well. As early as 1897 the court found that the word 'liberty' in the due process clause encompassed a lot more than just freedom from incarceration. Since then a number of rights have gained and lost favor (the right to contract has had an especially rocky development), with privacy being just one many incarnations of the doctrine.

With all that being said, the only real legitimate pro-life legal arguments are:

1) The word 'person' in the constitution refers to fetuses either from the moment of conception or at some other time before they are born alive

2) Though the fetus itself doesn't have any constitutional protection, the state's right to regulate abortion as a part of its inherent police powers (which has been recognized by the court) outweighs the mother's right to personal autonomy (privacy).

3) The only individual rights retained by the people are those that are specifically enumerated in the constitution. Therefore the substantive due process doctrine, which is not a literal part of the constitution, should be overturned as a whole. In support of this argument, I would also mention that the SDP doctrine has essentially allowed for the court to act as a legislature.

4) Though substantive due process is legitimate and the due process clause does allow the court to recognize and protect un-enumerated rights, the right to an abortion and/or the right to personal autonomy/privacy is not a fundamental due process right.

TITCR.

We actually just did the contraception cases in my con law class yesterday, and we're doing Roe v. Wade tomorrow. Perfect timing.

"intact dilation and extraction" abortion --the medical term for the type of abortion?

I have no idea why America has embraced right-wing spin doctor terminology. Partial birth abortion is almost as good as the 'death tax'

just sayin'

Sure, call it what you want. Just be careful not to go over the details of how the procedure works . . . that's the left wing spin - silence about exactly what goes on here. Having read and read over the past two days about these cases, and not having formed any strong opinion about abortion generally, I am now to the point that I can't bear to say that these procedures are ok, unless the mother is definitely going to die without them. I think it more humane to let the baby be born and then allow it to "expire" (is that term, or "fetal demise" as they say in the opinion another example of the right wing spin you mention??? please) on its own. I can't even type the things they do in these procedures. It really is quite graphic.

That being said, I think the not intact D&E will allow Casey standards, Stenberg, etc to be met without need for recourse to the non-intact. The intent language of the statute makes it clear that the doctor has reasonable room to protect the mother and perform abortions . . .we are just excluding one procedure which fails other tests.

Logged

…no bloody or unbloody change of society can eradicate the evil in man: as long as there will be men, there will be malice, envy and hatred, and hence there cannot be a society which does not have to employ coercive restraint.

"intact dilation and extraction" abortion --the medical term for the type of abortion?

I have no idea why America has embraced right-wing spin doctor terminology. Partial birth abortion is almost as good as the 'death tax'

just sayin'

Sure, call it what you want. Just be careful not to go over the details of how the procedure works . . . that's the left wing spin - silence about exactly what goes on here. Having read and read over the past two days about these cases, and not having formed any strong opinion about abortion generally, I am now to the point that I can't bear to say that these procedures are ok, unless the mother is definitely going to die without them. I think it more humane to let the baby be born and then allow it to "expire" (is that term, or "fetal demise" as they say in the opinion another example of the right wing spin you mention??? please) on its own. I can't even type the things they do in these procedures. It really is quite graphic.

That being said, I think the not intact D&E will allow Casey standards, Stenberg, etc to be met without need for recourse to the non-intact. The intent language of the statute makes it clear that the doctor has reasonable room to protect the mother and perform abortions . . .we are just excluding one procedure which fails other tests.

Im not sure where I stand on abortion in general. Just saying that theres a reason right wingers want to call in a "partial birth abortion" its not like leftwingers are trying to use the term "very important medical procedure that could save women's lives" they'd like to call it by its correct name which , to me, makes sense.

btw- I do think that this decision was a mistake in that the law in question makes no mention of excepting cases in which a woman's life is in jeopardy.

It also doesn't create a situation in which a woman would die because of lack of options. That's what I was saying about doc intent. The evidence in the record conflicted, but ultimately it was decided that this procedure is never medically necessary to save a woman's life. They are waiting for and have left the door open for an as applied challenge.

Also, let's say I grant you partial birth abortion is right wing spin. Are fetal demise and allowing the non-viable fetus to exper ex-utero left wing spin??? They consistently fail to mention crushing the unborn fetus' head and/or ripping apart . . . I'll give you yours if you grant me mine.

Just remember, yours and not mine got into the official record . ..

Logged

…no bloody or unbloody change of society can eradicate the evil in man: as long as there will be men, there will be malice, envy and hatred, and hence there cannot be a society which does not have to employ coercive restraint.

…no bloody or unbloody change of society can eradicate the evil in man: as long as there will be men, there will be malice, envy and hatred, and hence there cannot be a society which does not have to employ coercive restraint.

Leo, Im not going to pretend to know the least bit about the medical procedure invovled. This is an issue that I've largely chosen to keep my nose out of mostly because I think that the govt. shouldn't legislate around it.

Morally, I find abortion wrong- I also find telling women they have to have children they dont want wrong.

I decided long ago that the world is better off when we all don't impose morals on each other. So I leave it up to the woman invovled; if she thinks abortion is reprehensible then she'll look for other options. If she thinks she needs to have an abortion- she'll have one. She may as well get it in a medical clinic and not perform it herself.

I just get nervous when society takes away individual choice. I don't think this is as cut an dry of an issue as everyone trys to make it.

That's cool man. I didn't mean to be a jerk, or to make you feel the need to explain yourself. I've just been reading this stuff too much lately. Apologies. I agree with the vast majority of what you've said.

Logged

…no bloody or unbloody change of society can eradicate the evil in man: as long as there will be men, there will be malice, envy and hatred, and hence there cannot be a society which does not have to employ coercive restraint.

Well, had the court been as it were before Alito, with O'Connor, this ban would not have been upheld. It was Alito's vote that sealed the majority. O'Conner would have sided with the dissenters, making the majority again 5-4 but if favor of striking down the ban.

New York Times quote: The most important vote was that of the newest justice, Samuel A. Alito Jr. In another 5-to-4 decision seven years ago, his predecessor, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, voted to strike down a similar state law. Justice Alito’s vote to uphold the federal law made the difference in the outcome announced Wednesday.

Well, had the court been as it were before Alito, with O'Connor, this ban would not have been upheld. It was Alito's vote that sealed the majority. O'Conner would have sided with the dissenters, making the majority again 5-4 but if favor of striking down the ban.

New York Times quote: The most important vote was that of the newest justice, Samuel A. Alito Jr. In another 5-to-4 decision seven years ago, his predecessor, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, voted to strike down a similar state law. Justice Alito’s vote to uphold the federal law made the difference in the outcome announced Wednesday.

I think everybody knew how Alito would vote. The question was Kennedy - who wrote 1/3 of the opinion in Casey. I don't know. It's an interesting point.

Logged

…no bloody or unbloody change of society can eradicate the evil in man: as long as there will be men, there will be malice, envy and hatred, and hence there cannot be a society which does not have to employ coercive restraint.